Merseburg wheel part

[rasselasss]

Barkalot,i agree anyone trying to stop that wheel with the short handle would be trying to avoid the turning wheel,the axle extended beyond it and the support,so he would be standing at an awkward angle leaning into the space it would be total lunacy,his leverage would be reduced by reaching over the obstacles in his way,an arm could be broke very easily......just to add the height to the axle centre is at least 6foot 3 inches ...so his arms would be reaching upwards unless he stood on something to level himself,precarious to say the least.

[daanopperman]

Hi all ,
In one of my earlier post's I described a way to reverse a bi-directional wheel , in that case it was reversed from the rim , if one would grab onto the rim the mechanism inside the wheel would flip over and actually brake the wheel as it starts to reverse the direction of force , IOW , the "slight push " would come automaticlly as the rim was tried to be stopped , then if you see the wheel is about to stop , a slight forward movement would put the machanism in a neutral state for the wheel to stay stationary . The same could have been used by the axel , if you could reverse the mechanism by grabbing hold of the bar you only needed to reverse the mecanism , not stop the wheel , it would be like a giant reverse switch .

[ovyyus]

I'd rather try to stop a flywheel that weighed 150 lbs. going 40 rpm than a flywheel that weighed 300 lbs. going 40 rpm!
The weight is secondary to power out, but is primary to manual braking.

That might be the case for a free spinning flywheel, but it would not be the case if Bessler's wheel could continuously lift 70 lbs at 3 inches radius. In that case I would rather try to stop a 40 RPM 300 lb free spinning flywheel than a 40 RPM 150 lb powered flywheel.

[ovyyus]

Daan, that's an interesting take on the braking of the wheel. However, if correct then any quickly applied load to the wheel, which might cause it to decelerate, could switch it's internal mechanism into reverse and bring it to a halt. That doesn't seem to fit the eyewitness accounts.

[daxwc]

rasselasss

i think Bessler just wanted and succeeded to confuse such was his fear of giving any insight to his device

I think the handle is exactly what it says it is. Lower our expectation of the weight of the wheel ;700lbs was too high anyway


ovyyus:

That might be the case for a free spinning flywheel, but it would not be the case if Bessler's wheel could continuously lift 70 lbs at 3 inches radius. In that case I would rather try to stop a 40 RPM 300 lb free spinning flywheel than a 40 RPM 150 lb powered flywheel.

Doesn’t matter what we think. Reports are it was stopped by hand on the axle and the drawing clearly states “a handle for stopping�. So it can be done, the "magic show" is not there and 40 rpm is fairly slow; just need to figure out the guts that let you do that. Come on, its hard to imagine a mechanical advantage in plain sight wasn't picked up during the test and reported.

[eccentrically1]

What about the block and tackle? Does the translation Stewart began - (quote) ... "which however was first reduced by the help of pulleys about four times, that the ascent would be very slow. ..." ...
take 70 lbs out of the picture?

[daxwc]

My opinion is Wolff’s statement, even if properly translated and understood can’t override all the drawings or the eyewitness testaments.

machines constructed by Monsieur Orffyreus (at Gera, Draschwitz
and Mersburg respectively), we can see that the first could only lift a
few pounds, the second 40 or so, but the third could lift between 70
and 80 lbs. What is more, the method by which this is achieved is
very straightforward, consisting of stout pulleys. GB pg63

GB:
Perpetual or self-moving Motion, In addition an accurate Illustration
of what has been seen since the month of June in this 1715th

I state this since I once - 1 - attached a cord or rope to the
wheel’s axle, and led it over two pulleys out of the window. With
the aid of this arrangement I was able to raise a chest full of
stones, weighing approximately a hundredweight, as high as the
height of the building itself would permit. (page 22) DT pg 192

He then attached a rope to the axle – the other
end being allowed to hang down out of the window.
This far end was attached to a chest full of
bricks - about 70 lb weight in all – and this load was raised and
lowered several times by the machine. DT pg 239
Joh Weife

It also retained this same speed and regularity of rotation when it
was used to lift a chest containing 6 heavy wall-bricks (the total
weight being about 70 lbs). The apparatus used was an
arrangement of pulleys; the rope went from the first, nearest the
machine, across at an angle to the window 8 ells distant, and
then descended perpendicularly via another a distance of
several fathoms down to the courtyard where the chest was
sited. The chest was then several times lifted by the Wheel,
through this arrangement, up to the roof without any difficulty DT pg 241
Merseburg, 31st October 1715, Julius Bernhard Von Rohr

There Now Follows A Description Of The External
Appearance Of The Orffyrean Perpetual Motion,
Constructed At Merseburg. DT 1719

[ovyyus]

Yes it would take 70 lbs out of the picture (maybe effectively reduce it to around 17 pounds). But of course, if this is true, it opens up a can of worms when it comes to the subject of actual wheel output power. Such as whether or not Bessler's marketing statements might be seen as deceptive and the question of what else is not quite as it might first appear.

Wagner obviously had a bee in his bonnet about Bessler. Of course that could be the result of jealousy, but he does make some interesting points of fact in his critiques. He accused Bessler of being boastful and arrogant (I guess we already know that) and of twisting demonstration results and witness accounts to suit his business and marketing needs. Here we are 300 years down the track struggling with limited information and totally removed from any local contact with the culture, language, business and social settings of the time. That's why I think Stewart's input is so valuable, without which any attempt to seriously investigate might devolve to even more of a silly guessing game.

[rasselasss]

There is an lot of confliction in the translations and the etching,someone said it was done before/after,i have studied the sketch its not a good likeness to the descriptions of the witness's ie.the supports are same thickness as the axle,where's the bearings ,all i can see is what looks like a 1/2 or 1 inch dia.shaft for the inverted pendulum poking through and going by this we must dispute the stopping handle and thus might explain the lifting of wheel mounts when doing work....also if we believe the sketch the wheel was light in weight and had'nt a great deal of torque and was totally reliant on pulley advantage(multiplication)as others have said ignore the sketch(engraving)as reliable,so we're left with just the descriptions and the accuracy of the translations .....which i agree are important.

[rasselasss]

As Ovyyus mentioned the cultural aspect in those days was a "downer"for Bessler ,slaves/serfs could be had very cheaply,why pay a large amount of money for something thats capability could be replicated for a pittance....remember this was at a time when the industrial revolution was just beginning,as usual it was all about money.

[eccentrically1]

As long as we're opening cans, then how would anyone have been able to stop the wheel at the rim and be lifted off their feet if there is nothing sticking out of the rim to hold on to? If anyone tried to grab onto it that tightly, it could have torn the cloth.

[jim_mich]

I believe the cloth was an oilcloth material. Oilcloth (as discussed in the past) is a canvas-like material coated with linseed oil, which when dry forms a wax-like film. It was used much like plastic film is used today.

These are simply my worthless thoughts. I might be wrong.

[eccentrically1]

But could someone have stopped the wheel by grabbing the rim? It doesn't seem any more likely than grabbing the handle.

[daxwc]

rasselasss

There is an lot of confliction in the translations and the etching,someone said it was done before/after

There are two drawings of the “Bi-directional Wheel at Merseburg, Germany� the very first one was done what seems a couple of months before the Oct test, but the second was done for DT in 1719 which gave lots of time to fix major errors in setup or witnesses gripes.


The Second Figure of the Perpetual Motion at Weissenstein is in DT in 1719 some 4 years after and the same basic setup is shown, but of course different wheel.




In DT the first testimonial Julius Bernhard Von Rohr (Special Commissioner) gave his endorsement of the oct 31 1715 event and the setup, given at Merseburg, 21st December 1715, giving 2 months to correct and add in the block and tackle.

In DT 1719 the second testimonial Johann Andreas Weise (Chief Official Hochfûrst’s Office), gives the setup of 1715.

In DT 1719 the third testimonial is consensus of the entire official body of witnesses and has everybody’s signature, Signed, Merseburg, 31st October 1715, and the setup is given without the block and tackle. Christian Wolff (Councillor and Mathematician) signed this testimonial himself and contains the setup without the block and tackle!

[daxwc]

eccentrically1

But could someone have stopped the wheel by grabbing the rim? It doesn't seem any more likely than grabbing the handle.

I dont understand why you think this is so hard, all the leverage is out there. What is harder is nearer the axle, but 40 rpm is not as fast as it sounds; a gerbil can get his wheel to go 60 rpm.